Talk:Gender inequality in India

Removal of unbalanced and npov tags without discussion

Any justifications for why these were removed? -Rushyo (talk) 14:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Replaced {{POV-check|date=June 2008}} tag that was removed w/o discussion.--Wloveral (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Reinstated npov tag

This article seems relevant: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7466916.stm In fact, that's what brought me here. Imagine my surprise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.226.245.252 (talk) 17:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Adding Original Research tag

The cited sources don't seem to support the material, which goes far beyond the information in the linked articles. I noticed that this page was nominated for deletion immediately after its creation - does changing the title really address the issues that were raised then? 98.226.245.252 (talk) 21:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, the deletion tag, as well as NPOV tags, have been removed repeatedly throughout the history of this page without discussion. 98.226.245.252 (talk) 21:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

What a joke!

User:Yobmod has challanged the OR tagging of this article. Just because a few articles in some newspapers highlight a few small issues , that does not make it notable. Papers often cary opinnion pieces and rants of its journos. That does not justifiy a wikipedia article.

Note, i didn't challenge the tagging, and i've never removed the tag. I stated in the AfD that this wasn't simply OR. There are a large number of citation (16 at last count) backing up claims made. While other sections may be OR, justifying the tag, the whole article does not, therefore calling it such in an AfD is disingenuous.Yobmod (talk) 10:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Let me start with the title: What percentage of sexism in India counts as sexism against men. 1%?? 0.1%. No. Probably not even 0.0001%. Can you give some hard numbers on this?

No idea. Can you give any number on the percentage of sexism against women?

I beleive that the onus of proof lies with the claimaint , not the defender. So in this case the editor who claimed that sexism agains men was rampant in India , should provide the stats.

The title only said sexism against men existed. We have many citations showing this is a viewpoint. The claimant's claim is proved. although it was still not-NPOV.

You can find citations for anything on the net. There are websites with "proof" for every conspirqacy theory that exists. Are they reliable just because the happen to have a website or a book? No. Please seeWP:RELIABLE. One or two articles in a paper or website dont make anything reliable. Again "this is a viewpoint" doesn't work in wikipedia. It has to be notable and reliable. You have said that "the claimaint's claim was proved". I repeat my question: do you have any numbers?

The article makes no claims about numbers.

1. Women get 33% reservation in panchayats and municipal elections.: Can you tell me how this is discriminatory in a country where women are not even alowed to step out of their house. Is it wrong to have 33% women in local governing bodies when it would not have been 1% without reservations?

Yes, it is wrong. If women are equal to men, they shouldn't get special treatment. Here it seems to be the lesser of 2 evils, but is still wrong.

Sorry, but we dont live in Utopia. The reservations are not "special treatment". They are in palace to ensure that Women have atleast some representation and that their voice is heard in local bodies. I fail to understand how giving 33% reservation to women qualifies as "special treatment , while in an ideal society ,it should be 50%, without reservations. America has "affirative action". Is AA called as "racial discrimination against Whites"? No.

The UK had something called "women only shorlists" to encourage women to enter politics. These were declared illegal because such reservations are sexist. I can find citations calling the indian version sexist. Many argue the AA is racist, hence it is now illegal in america.

Again, reliable citations please, not gripe artilces. Many is weasel term. Question: How many?. Also according to this article:Affirmative action in the United States, AA is illegal in only one US province , and can be overriden by federal laws.

The 33% reservation has multiple cites. "Many" isn't used in this sentence.

1. They also get reservation and preferential treatments in education and jobs. Wrong: Women are discriminated against in jobs. The fact that a woman can have a child and will require maternity leave often results in married women being turned away even if they qualify.
2. Seats are reserved for females in buses, trains, metros and many other places.Entire railway compartments are reserved for females, where men are not allowed to enter. Would you rather have them pawed and molested by perverts in crowded compartments, just to make it non-discriminatory?

Perverts should be prosecuted. Non-criminal men should not be ghetto-ised. Innocent until proven guilty dfoesn't seem to apply to men in India? Seperating the women doesn't address the causes, it just hides from the reality.

Social situations are different in every country. Please do not judge one country using the socio-cultural prism of another. Let me give you an example: Thumbs up is a positive gesture in the west; but in some places it is as good as saying "Up Y***'s". Men and women do not intermingle as freely in India as they do in the west. Women would anyday prefer to travel in a ladies compartment than in a general compartment. And anyway Wikipedia is about "what is" , not "what should (ideally) be".

It's nice to know that all women in India are the same, and you know what they prefer. Treating people differently based on there sex in non-sexual situations is sexist by definition. Riding on a bus is not a sex act. This is not segregation, as women are allowed to sit with the men, but not vice versa.

Again ,please don't get into idealistic stuff. "Riding on a bus is not a sex act" Who said it was? This is nonsense. Please stick to the point: How is reserving a few seats in public transport for women sexist? Will you simmilarly claim that reserving seats in busses for handicapped commuters is discriminatory to non-handicapped commuters?

Treating women differently is sexist, that's what the word means. Man only clubs are sexist, and women only seats are sexist.

1. Men are almost always forced to serve their country: Conscription has nverer happened in India. Nobody will drag you and force you to join the army.
2. There are many benefits for widows, mothers, sisters, daughters[citation needed]. There are no such benefits for widowers, fathers, brothers, sons[citation needed]. This one deserves a really large laugh!!! In most Indian families, women are not allowed to go out and earn. Hence they are dependent on their menfolk. So if a bread-earner dies, do you want his widow and children to be forced into begging and prostitution?
3. Women get share of both parental and matrimonial home Fact is most women get absolutely no share in property . Even in their parental homes.
4. Acts like 498A, dowry prohibition, domestic violence prevention, sexual harassment are used as a tool by the state[citation needed] to harass men. You are right , maybe men who beat or burn their wives should be rewarded by the state for keeping the female population from going beserk and taking over ! Right? And just tell me: How does a law against sexual harrasment become harrasment against men. Do you want to say that it is morally wrong to punish a rapist, child molestor, pervert or paedophile?

It is morally wrong to imprison a man without trial or bail on the accusation of one witness. No matter the crime, it is always wrong.

In a dowry or rape case, almost always there is only one witness. Do you expect rapists to commit their crime in the centre of a busy road? Or do you expect a rapist to give evidence against himself? Or do you expect that in a dowry case, when the husband's entire famly is involved in harassing the woman for dowry, one of his family members will come up and give evidence against him in court? I'm really sorry but you are really not making any sense here. Please get real.

Try reading the cites. Men can now be imprisoned without bail for shouting at their wives or making them get a job.

1. Men work exclusively in hazardous and dangerous jobs like police, fire fighting, mining, border security Again ,no one forced the, to take this job.
2. To get senior citizen benefits, men have to be 65 years of age[citation needed], while females can be as young as 60 : As young as 60!! LOL!

This is clearly disrimination. women are not as good as men, so shouldn't work as hard?

Women live longer, so retiring earlier has only sexist reasons. Can you give any non-sexist reason for this law?

First of all , this is the first time I have heard that the senior citizen age is different for men and women. Ill try to verify if it is true, but I doubt it.

It is different in most european countries, so i wouldn't be suprised.

See this:"The National Policy on Older Persons confers the status of senior citizen to a person who has attained the age of 60 years." This is the link:[1]. It does not say that the age is different for men or women.

1. The age for marriage of boys is 21, while for girls it is 18 It is a proven fact that boys take a longer time to reach maturity as compared to Girls . that is why the government recommends this 3 year diff. Anyway. it is a recommnnedation, not a compulsion. It is perfectly legal for an 18 year old male to get married.

So change this sentence to reflect the truth, using citations! To me it seems that the recomendation for women to get married earlier is sexist against women, a rule made by men who want to have sex with young girls and find brides that will not question them. Either way it is a sexist recomendation!.

Please read my comment again . This is not some law made by men , but a recomendation based on the fact that women at a given age are mentally more mature than men at the same age. 18 years is a perfectly natural age to get married , below that , a woman may not be physically and mentally capable of married life. The government bases its recommendation on facts , not on idealistic scenarios.

This has a cite, that confirms boys may not marry before 21. How can someone live in India and not know that?Yobmod (talk) 15:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok I was wrong on that point.

All good, at least it forced me to improve the article :-). Btw, boys can get married in the UK at 16, as can girls. they seem to cope ok. wasn't the government that made the Indian law almost entirely made of men? How is this not a law made by men?

I dont think there are many governments in the world where women outnumber men(Do you know any?). So every single constitution in the world is "sexist", and hence by default, discriminatory against women; right? Ironically, earlier in this talk page you have said that granting more representation to women in India in governments is discriminatory! Arent you contradicting yourself?

I said the constitution isn't sexist, did you read the sentence? Do you understand what a consitution is? The women's reservation is nowhere in the constitution. It is used as a cite in the article.

Im sorry. I know i am breaking a few Wikipedia rules. Bu this article is pure SHIT!--Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 10:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You seem to think that a country that discriminates against women cannot discriminate against men. why not?

I think that you should differentiate between "India" and "Indian society". When you say "country" , it seems that you are implying that India's constitution actively encourages discrimination against women, whereas you should have stated that "...a society that...". Rather India's constitution makes every effort to give men and women equal status. I know the ground reality is not as good as the constitution envisages. But your implication that the constitutional framework of India actively abbets discrimination against women, and hence is also eager to discriminate against men is funny(If it discriminates against both men and women, who is it being fair to?) and insulting at the same time.

I don't believe a country has feelings, therefore it cannot be insulted. If a society disriminates against men and women in different ways, it is being fair to neither. Disrimination in the opposite of fairness. If you prefer "India has a society that...", why not fix it?

A country may not have feelings, but people do. And really , can you tell me how it is possible to discriminate against two groups who make 100% of a set. You can discriminate aginst one, not both. It doesnt even make sense. And can you give any specific instances whereby the Indian constitution discriminates against men or women. And please dont give me Utopian views. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 12:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Animals have feelings too.

By discriminating against them in different ways. In Germany for example (not quite a utopia!), women get paid less, but men have compulsory military/social service. Both are discriminated against on different issues. You seem to think discrimination means something it does not - it is not an all or nothing proposition, people can be discriminated against in one area and not in others.

Read the article - it specifically states that the constitution guarentees equality. The constitution is not the only form of law. Laws which apply to only one gender are inherently sexist - they treat treat the sexes differently. The article has numurous cited examples of such laws.Yobmod (talk) 17:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The only thing I can say about the above two statemetns is this: the ideal world and the real world are very different. I can't help it if somenone refuses to accept reality, it's their choice. The Indian government makes its policies based on the stark realities of the Indian society. That is the only way for it to ensure equality. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 10:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Jepp, the real world is sexist. The ideal world not.

For the statments you specifically disagree with, add a citation needed tag, then come back in a week and delete them if they remain unreferenced.Yobmod (talk) 11:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Bitterness of wives leads to abuse of India's anti-dowry laws
• Dowry Act-scared parents disown sons
• Misuse of Anti-Dowry laws to blackmail husband
• Tihar has a special cell for moms-in-law
• Misuse of 498A - much ado about nothing? and responses to it
• "Majority of dowry cases are false: SP"
• "Some brides are ‘villains’, not victims: lawyers"
• "Bitter Half"
• "Hope for Victimised Husbands"

I've browsed wikipedia for many years, but this is the first time I've watched an article in the early stages of development. Until now I was sure it deserved to be deleted (I haven't voted because I don't yet have an account), but it is becoming a fascinating discussion on the pros and cons of affirmative action as a means for combating discrimination. 98.226.245.252 (talk) 17:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

AFAIK, IP users can participate in AfDs without prejudice. Well, not official discrimination :-). Yobmod (talk) 17:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Rename

I renamed the article to remove the NPOV "against men". Additions on the role of sexism against women would therefore be great. Of course, article may still disappear by the AfD process beofre that happens :-).Yobmod (talk) 11:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

And i made a small attempt at neutralising the POV. At least the lead, and added a new section on Violence. I think the article is best served by increasing the info in the anti women area, rather than removing sourced material in the anti-men area.Yobmod (talk) 12:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

http://infochangeindia.org/200602075633/Agenda/Claiming-Sexual-Rights-In-India/Emancipation-through-legislation.html Article about use of "unatural sex" laws agains tmen only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yobmod (talk • contribs) 14:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Tags but no talk

Tags for weasel words and "nomination for neutrality check" have been added with links to see the discusion on the talk page. But there is no discusion. So i'd thought i'd start it here - hopefully the tags are added in good faith, so we'll see some constructive contributions.

Weasel words in lead

1. Which are weasel word exactly?

i've been as specific as possible with my edits, mentioning specific laws, groups, years, cities. I can be even more specific, causing the disputed sections to become even longer, but this seems counter to improving the article.

The weasel tag was re-added, ignorring the plea for discusion. I'll remove it again.

I can only assume these tags are being added in bad faith. The weasel words tag was added to a sentence with 2 citations confirming that "men's advocacy groups" have complained. The groups are then named in the cites then later in the article.Yobmod (talk) 11:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

the tag was paced for the weasel word "some" . Again the question "How many". One or two groups of disgruntled people do not count as notable. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 12:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC).

We don't have cites for "many" yet, and it would suprise me if many men's groups even existed - are they common in India? I only know of one such group in the UK for example, generally men don't form these groups.Yobmod (talk) 15:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You want me to change it to "at least 3"? It can be cited. Numorous newspapers have discussed this issue, it is clearly notable Yobmod (talk) 12:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

One event somewhere may be covered by 10-20 newspapers. That does not come as 20 different citations for the topic(for the event may be, but not for the issue itself).--Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 08:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I meant there are numerous sources stating that "some" men's groups have complained, and diverse sources naming the groups, hence we can expand the lead to name these groups, which i think would be to the detriment of the article. The "some" is true and uncontroversial, and groups are named later in the article in the appropriate section, and interested readers can follow the citation links. Naming the groups in the lead would be undue weight to their opinions (we don't name women's right's groups either, or assign their views to specific spokes-people).Yobmod (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality check?

2. where does this nomination for neutrality take place? Who will be doing the check and when? I've never seen this tag before, so have no idea what i should do to improve the article to allow its removal. Changing the POV wouldn't be enough to remove it, if this nomination was really made. Does it stay until the check is done? Is there a time limit? Must an admin do it?

As no-opne responded, and the process of this checking is so opaque (I can't find anything explaing this tag), i've removed it. I think the article is far more balanced than when the tag was added anyway.Yobmod (talk) 15:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Dubious: India suffers from various forms of sexism

3. A "dubious" tag has been added to the first sentence "India suffers from various forms of sexism". Does anyone contest that India has sexism?!

Question: How many forms of sexism are there?

Answer: more than 1, therfore various. Against men, women, transexuals. or legal and social. or physical and verbal, Religous or secular, traditional or blamed western influences. etc etc.Yobmod (talk) 11:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ: Sexism can only be of three types: against men , women, and transgender. social, legal etc are modes of enforcing sexism , not types themselves. In my opinion the statement could be more appropriate if it states: Different types of sexism are observed in India"or something.

Well, "various" and "different types" are exactly synonymous to me, but i'm not stuck on the wording. I already changed it to "Indian society".Yobmod (talk) 15:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me emphasise this: writing articles in wikipedia is not about what "I feel " or "you feel". I just checked the article on Sexism ands guess what : it exactly matches what I had stated. So I will be changing the statement. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 12:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

And oh! I forgot to tell you, that transgenders(the real ones) actually have a more elevated status in Indian society than in other parts of the world.--Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 12:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You are the only one who used the word "feel". Who are you quoting with the scare quotes? Sexism says what you stated where? Your only contribution to this section so far was a question, not a statement. You seem to be seeking conflict where none existsYobmod (talk) 13:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

In plain English: please read the article in Wikipedia titled Sexism. The article named Sexism shows only three types of sexism. Got it! What is your idea of consensus. What you like is consensus, what you don't like is not consensus? When you edit it does not couase conflict, when I edit it causes conflict? And what about this:Well, "various" and "different types" are exactly synonymous to me, : Are we expected to go by your definnitons insted of what Wikipedia itself states in the artricle on Sexism. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 04:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

3 types = various. or different types.

I said i did not care which was used, and have never edited the article on this subject. Why are you being so agressive?

"Exactly synonymous to me" is an informed view of a native English speaker with access to a thesaurus. They are synonyms - what do think the difference is? Different requires more than one not the same, various requires they are not the same and are more than one.

As neither are used, this discusion is pointless.Yobmod (talk) 09:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

"Forward" and Reverse discrimination / Gender bias against men

What's 'Forward Discrimination'? Some kind of pun? 98.226.245.252 (talk) 01:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't know if discussion will make any difference to the IP user(s) changing the article, but anyway:

Reverse discrimination is a real english term that is the most appropriate discription of the percieved bias against men. It refers to discrimination against any group that was previously dominant. From the number of people reverting the changes to "bias against men" or other terms, it seems clear that the consensus here is to keep this section as reverse discrimination (particularly from my point of view due to the that as it has a wiki article which can be linked to explain the term, and can be cited, whenereas "gender bias" is an ill-defined term.)Yobmod (talk) 14:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the section title from "reverse discrimination" to "Opposition to pro-women legistlation". I feel that it is more apporpriate. Reverse discrimination is a rather dubious term. It is more about perception; the feeling that some hiterto advantaged groups have when laws are enacted to protect to protect interests of marginalised sections. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 12:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

As for this edit: [2] , the number of womens only or mens onl college are very few as compared to co-ed colleges. So it cannot be claimed to be discriminatory. I have also taken the liberty(if I have the permission from your highness) to remove those sections which have not been cited for more than 2 weeks.--Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 12:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Way to seek consensus, naming the cintentious section heading to something equaly contentious.Yobmod (talk) 12:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

How should I rephrase what you are trying to say:"My consensus is better than your consesus" or "My NPOV is better than your NPOV" ? Or is it "My contensious is less contensious than your contensious"?Those laws are legitimate weapons to protect women. Just like the laws to protect the backward castes are oposed by upper castes as "discriminatory" to them , a few disgruntled menwill definetely call these laws as "discrimination against men". How many of them have really suffered from the abuse of laws and how many of them have rightly faced the music for their abuse of women. Every single law in the world will have some opponents. Calling it "reverse discrimination" is giving legitimacy to a small minority. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs)

It's not my consensus, it is the consenses of the 5+ editors that have reverted the changes back to Reverse discrimination multiple times. This makes it the de facto consensus version. Major changes such as section renames should be discussed, especially if they are already the focus of an edit war.

Reverse discrimination is a real term which exactly describes the accusations these groups have made. If you don't like it, then we can rename it, and i'll find a load more sources that call it such, and expand this section even more. Your POV (that it is not discrimination) is no better than the other POV (it is against men). The current version calls it reverse dicrimination, which is the non-POV term for this phenomenon, exactly parelelling Affimative action (which some call racism, and some say is not racism because it is needful). the "reverse" implicitly shows the reader it is the accusation of a particular groupYobmod (talk) 09:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

So, I tried a comprimise versio. Using the Opposition to legislation, and splitting the random bits off into another section, with the start of the intro saying some don't beleive these to be discrimination.Yobmod (talk) 16:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Does reserving seats for women in busses/trains constitute sexism

Comment: Did reserving seats for whites on buses in early 1900s America constitute racism? I see them as the same. Seperating people is one thing (segragation), but then giving different rights to the seperate groups is always an -ism. Whether this is sexist against men (as they have less choice) or women (as they are treated as needing special help, like disabled people) is debatable.Yobmod (talk) 08:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

One more question sure diability can happen to anybody so though it is discriminitation yet you will not find people against such discriminiation in therir favour. but when it is man or women yes because one rarely becomes the other it is important to study sexism either in favour men , against men , favouring women , against women and there is nothing like reverse sexism its just sexism.

Also regarding the special seats being reserved for women almost every bus in India has so I am not sure it needs citation but I am findind link from a newspapaer where women cribbing about men entering womens trains and there have been people fined for sitting in womens only seats similar to what used to happen when blacks used to sit in whites only places.

If a cite can be found for the last 2 points (cribbing / fines), they could be useful for the article. The fact of the women's seats is already cited.Yobmod (talk) 13:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• I would say this constitutes sexual discrimination (or gender discrimination if you prefer) against men. Johntex\^talk 01:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, It's "positive" discrimination, and therefore sexist, just as male only reservations would be. RayBarker (talk) 23:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course it's discrimination; that's a definitional issue that can't really be debated. How important or relevant it is can be debated. I would tend to think it's relevant in an article with this title... CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Rmvd RfC, seems a snowball consensus that article should cover this.Yobmod (talk) 08:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism by IP addresses in the 59.178.x.x range

I'm not sure what the proper procedure is for dealing with this, other than reverting the changes every time they crop up. Also, I strongly suspect User:Cupidcobra is behind all of this, as a similar IP address attempted to remove the sockpuppet notification from his talk page. 98.226.245.252 (talk) 05:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Copied from above: The last edit by 59.178.213.112 has become completely vandalism rather than POV-pushing. Renaming unrelated section to damage the article is unacceptable (Violence against women --> It is discrimination against men). How do we go about preventing this? The user will not join in with civil discusions nor abide by consensus.Yobmod (talk) 09:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with the likely culprit. Should be banned from this article? Or an IP ban? Yobmod (talk) 09:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought I'd read somewhere that it's possible to ban a range of IPs, but I don't know how to go about it, and probably don't have the authority, being an anon myself (I plan on continuing to edit from this IP until things die down a bit here, for consistency's sake). If you want to protect against all anons, I've no objection. I don't have any knowledge in this area—I've been watching this article mainly because I've never seen one in the early stages of development before. It's very interesting. 98.226.245.252 (talk) 01:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I've created a Suspected Sock Puppets case here - Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Cupidcobra but I'm getting some flack for having a new account (I'm 98.226.245.252). Murmurer (talk) 00:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

As the poor quality admin at the sockpuppet case did nothing, and the vandalism is still occurring regularly by the same IP range, i've requested semi-protection.Yobmod (talk) 10:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

redirect

How does the site "Sexism against men" forward to sexism in INDIA? there is no real correlation here. Lihaas (talk) 19:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

edits explained

For my first edit where it said ". " I queried fact check b/c it said 70% as a source for majority, but the 70% is only of the marries women. It says nothing about discrimination being more than that of men. Perhaps a sentence like this would be better, "sexism has been manifest in the form of violence and discrimination against women for a long time, and to a some?? extent reverse discrimination against men has become prevalent."

The following has not proof either "These benefits are argued to be necessary to redress the historic and continuing wealth imbalance between the genders." This is original research.

The part about eve-teasing is irrelevant, especially in the middle of a paragraph. It just comes out at you. Certainly, something about this phenomenon could be in the article. Probably in the part about other forms of discrimination, for the trains/buses part which it is a response to.

The rest is largely just organization and grammer edits. I put fact checks every once in a while because it is hard to find the info if at all. One should cite the page of the UN document it comes from. Lihaas (talk) 20:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for the copyedit. The uncited sentences in the lead are somewhat my fault - they were added to satisfy editors claiming the article was biased (who didn't want to find the references for the alternative view point). So they can be deleted or cited. I readded the eve-teasing though, per edit summary.Yobmod (talk) 08:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not that hard to find the info - pdf's have a search function.Yobmod (talk) 09:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It was done elsewhere on Wikipedia. If it's that simply to find sources then it can be cited. Lihaas (talk) 10:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It is cited. thanks for the help. Some other refences that ight be useful (mostly for dowry law and opposition)

• Bitterness of wives leads to abuse of India's anti-dowry laws
• Dowry Act-scared parents disown sons
• Misuse of Anti-Dowry laws to blackmail husband
• Tihar has a special cell for moms-in-law
• Misuse of 498A - much ado about nothing? and responses to it
• "Majority of dowry cases are false: SP"
• "Some brides are ‘villains’, not victims: lawyers"
• "Bitter Half"
• "Hope for Victimised Husbands"
• India's dowry deaths, BBC

Yobmod (talk) 10:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Great, if you want to incorporate them then go ahead. The more citations the merrier, and sources look okay. Lihaas (talk) 11:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup and NPOV tags explained. (September 2009)

Wikipedia is meant to be an online encyclopaedia and not a public forum to discuss and thrash out social and personal issues. I have tagged this article for Cleanup and NPOV an this article has to be re-written in a neutral fashion and in a manner that is consistent with an encyclopaedia. I will be starting on the task in a day or two and would welcome positive contributions or suggestions in this regard. I would prefer that any expression of personal opinion or non neutral statements be amended or deleted as necessary. I shall start the clean up tomorrow and look forward to constructive criticism.

Manoj Prajwal (talk) 16:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I just reset an modification by a user at 59.178.197.167 (looks like the 58.178.... range activity, as mentioned above (Vandalism in the 58.178... IP address range), again. Manoj Prajwal (talk) 17:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

That IP is a long-standing sock-puppet vandel. Page protection was rejected as he doesn't vandalise often enough, but when he does, all his edits are attempts to show that men are persecuted in India. I've reverted to the version before the latest spate of vandalism (the very first ridiculous sentence was part of it). I didn't re-add the tags, as i think most of the NPOV problems have been removed.YobMod 15:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

I'm not sure if these are the same reversions as occurred before but the article introduction and first section seems to skew facts to portray sexism against men.128.12.143.82 (talk) 19:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)